Supreme Court Monthly Digest: September 2020

Important Judgments/ Orders: 1. [Anti-Dumping Duty] Judicial Review Should Not Be Exercised Virtually As A Continuous Oversight Of Designated Authority Functions: SC Order dated September 1, 2020 Judicial review should not be exercised virtually as a continuous oversight of the DA's functions, observed the bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra Bhat while setting aside orders passed by Telengana High Court issuing directives to Designated Authority. Vide these orders, the High Court had issued specific directions for anti-dumping investigation into articles imported from European Union, initiated contempt against Designated Authority and also directed the replacement of the incumbent DA. [Case: The Designated Authority v. The Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd.] 2. [Giving & Fabricating False Evidence] Private Complaints Alleging Offences U/Sec 191 & 192 IPC Not Maintainable When It Is Committed In Relation To Court Proceedings: SC Order dated September 2, 2020 The Supreme Court held that a private complaint under Section 190 of CrPC cannot be filed alleging offences under Section 191 (Giving false evidence) and 192 (Fabricating false evidence) of IPC, even if false evidence is created outside the Court premises. The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and Navin Sinha observed that the offence punishable under these sections does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court. [Case: M/S Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Prasad Vassudev Keni] 3. [Article 226] Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Judicial Order Passed By High Court: SC Order dated September 3, 2020 The Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and KM Joseph held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers. In this case, the petitioner had filed a domestic violence complaint before Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, which was dismissed. The appeal against this order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The High Court also dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner assailed this order passed by the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 with a prayer to declare the judgment of the Single Judge 'void'. Later, this writ petition was transferred to Apex Court. [Case: Neelam Manmohan Attavar v. Manmohan Attavar (D) Thr LRs] 4. Serving Judicial Officers Cannot Club Their Previous Experience As Advocates To Claim Eligibility For Elevation As HC Judges: SC Order dated September 4, 2020 The Supreme Court observed that serving Judicial Officers cannot invoke Explanation (a) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India to club with their judicial service, the experience that they had at the Bar before joining judicial service, to claim eligibility for considering them for elevation as High Court judges. The bench comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian observed that such a benefit of clubbing can be allowed only to a person who held a judicial office and later became an advocate. [Case: R. Poornima & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.] 5. Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act - No Violation Of Labelling Regulations If Relevant Information Traceable From Barcode: SC Order dated September 4, 2020 The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee quashed a prosecution for alleged violation of Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 after noting that the relevant information about the batch of the product was available in the barcode affixed to it. Rule 32 mandates that every package of food should carry a label giving out information about the manufacturer, batch of the product, description of the food and its ingredients etc. [Case: Raghav Gupta v. State (NCT Delhi)] 6. Motor Accident Claims - Compensation For 'Loss Of Consortium' Can Be Awarded To Children And Parents Also: SC Order dated September 7, 2020 The Supreme Court observed that, in Motor Accident Compensation Claims, consortium can be awarded to children and parents also. The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy was considering appeals have been filed by three Insurance Companies viz. New India Assurance Company Limited, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. questioning the judgments of the High Courts arising out of the award by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) with regard to the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants under two heads, i.e., "Loss of Consortium" and "loss of love and affection. [Case: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati] 7. ...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: September 2020

Akshita Saxena

Tags